Article 26 of the Copyright Act states, “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, authors of oral and literary, musical, and dramatic/choreographic works have the exclusive right to publicly perform their works.” According to Article 3, Paragraph 1, Clause 9, “publicly perform” means “to act, dance, sing, play a musical instrument, or use other means to communicate the content of a work to a public that is present at the scene. This includes any communication to the public of an original broadcast of sounds or images through loudspeakers or other equipment.” Therefore, a person who infringes a music copyright owner’s right to publicly perform must present a “live” performance of a music work to the public by the methods stated in Art. 3, para. 1, cl. 9, so as to be accused of copyright infringement. … Generally speaking, the disputed electronic karaoke machine collects more than one thousand songs, while Defendant only stores eight songs that infringe the copyright. The proportion of the infringing act is very small. The probability of the selection of those eight songs by users is very little. So, it is not doubtless that the infringed songs had been publicly performed. In addition, the prosecutor has never produced evidence to prove the public performance of the infringed songs. As a result, the indication of Defendant’s crime does not reach the situation where general persons would not doubt the finding of guilt and would truly believe the crime had happened. Defendant cannot be considered guilty.